1. Certificates drawn up on February 9, 201 by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, which was signed by the Defendant on February 9, 2011.

1. Presumption

A. According to the notarial deed as stated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition No. 1 written by a notary public on February 9, 201 (hereinafter “notarial deed”), the Plaintiff approved on September 27, 2010 that a notary public bears the Defendant’s obligation of KRW 50 million under a monetary loan contract for consumption on September 27, 201, and decided to repay that amount until July 27, 2011. In the event a notary public fails to perform the obligation under the said monetary loan contract, the Plaintiff stated that he/she shall recognize compulsory execution.

B. On May 21, 2013, the Plaintiff reported marriage with the Defendant, but reported divorce on May 16, 2014.

[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the ground for appeal

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff in cash a total of KRW 1 million around October 2007, KRW 6 million around November 2007, KRW 30 million from around ten months from around December 2007, KRW 20 million from around February 2008, KRW 20 million around December 2008, KRW 20 million from around December 2008, KRW 15 million from July 2009, and KRW 122 million from September 201.

After the date of preparation of the instant process deed, a sum of KRW 50 million was lent from August 201 to January 6, 2012.

The notarial deed of this case was prepared as to KRW 50 million among the above loans of KRW 172 million, which is a part of the above loans of KRW 50 million.

B. The plaintiff's assertion does not borrow or take over KRW 50 million from the defendant or bear obligations equivalent to the same amount, and there is no causal relationship with the notarial deed of this case. The above notarial deed is null and void as there is no legal relation or false declaration of agreement.

3. It is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant, as alleged in its assertion, delivered the Plaintiff a sum of KRW 122 million from October 2007 to September 201, 201, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, there is no legal relationship which caused the Notarial Deed of this case.